Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

tofugu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 238 posts

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#201

Post by alephnerd »

lumost wrote: post #192
alephnerd wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mostly a lie for folks experienced enough to have families Surviving to that level is HARD. Most Junior Analysts in the IB and Consulting World flame out and exit the industry within 2-3 years.

Aye - it’s similar across most high end tech work. At the same time, most people in those positions have 5+ years of experience. Most studies show that such people maintain a lie about how much they are working.

> most high end tech work

It isn't. New Grad SWEs work at most 50 hours a week and VPs tend to work around 50-60 hours a week tops.

IB and Consulting have notoriously horrid work cultures because there are few roles but plenty of demand.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#202

Post by jayd16 »

specproc wrote: post #86
kirkules wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thinking you misinterpreted the comment you responded to? I read it as saying that you don't necessarily have to have employment linked healthcare just because you have at-will employment. The "inexplicably" being a commentary on the wisdom/sanity/compassion of linking healthcare to employment, rather than a claim that the parent comment had made an inexplicable leap of logic

I very much read it as I responded, and re-reading, still interpret it as such.

Kirkules is correct.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#203

Post by jayd16 »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #191
WalterBright wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. Therefore, employers include it as a way to increase total compensation at a lower cost. The origin of the practice was in WW2, when Roosevelt froze wages. To attract more and better employees, the companies threw in health insurance as a way around the restrictions.

>The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. It would be very easy to reverse, if literally anyone was willing to.

Hillary was for single payer. Trump ran on repealing even the ACA. I don't think it's as simple as literally anyone.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#204

Post by KptMarchewa »

jayd16 wrote: post #203
KptMarchewa wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. It would be very easy to reverse, if literally anyone was willing to.

Hillary was for single payer. Trump ran on repealing even the ACA. I don't think it's as simple as literally anyone.

I'm not talking about changing the healthcare system entirely, but the tax deduction status.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#205

Post by mekoka »

2112syrinx wrote: post #194

The term "black", etimologicaly speaking, is racist and should not be used. Japanese culture seems also to be racist, so not a surprise. Instead of "black companies", kindly use "evil companies" instead.

I suppose that's also why Japanese martial artists work their way toward a black belt.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#206

Post by apelapan »

dopfk09320k wrote: post #96
apelapan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The termination period in a Swedish employment contract certainly applies in both directions. If you have three months notice period in your contract, your employer could sue for loss of income if you don't honour that notice period. It usually doesn't happen that way, because it is a waste of everyone's time and money. But, if some employer feels the need to set an example the option is there.

That is certainly supprising to me. I assume most people just deal with it by showing up but silent quitting ?

If there is bad blood leading up to the termination, then I guess so. I haven't witnessed that more than once or twice in my career.

Most people make an extra effort to end on a positive note, both with colleagues and managers. Of course, effectively off-boarding yourself means having progressively less and less to do as time goes by... So in that sense you sort of quiet quit.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#207

Post by consteval »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #204
jayd16 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary was for single payer. Trump ran on repealing even the ACA. I don't think it's as simple as literally anyone.

I'm not talking about changing the healthcare system entirely, but the tax deduction status.

Right, but we're currently at a point politically where we're heavily considering regressions in healthcare and insurance, not progressions. We're talking about bringing back denying coverage for existing conditions and allowing insurance to deny medication on grounds of religious reasons.

Changing the tax deduction status would harm businesses, and therefore I can't see a conservative administration ever letting that fly.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#208

Post by consteval »

ponow wrote: post #141
vkou wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s super expensive COBRA costs you exactly how much you + your employer were paying for that insurance . It's expensive because your employer's share of insurance was a significant part of your compensation (And because US healthcare costs are pants-on-head insane.) I'll point out that it's generally quite expensive to, like, stop getting paid. Practically, post-ACA, health insurance in the US is about as tied…

Our regulations (including the medical guild) and legal structure (including crazy malpractice payouts for unintentional mistakes) forces everything to be more expensive than necessary. We are very far from a free market, even if we stopped with the untaxed benefits.

We left the free market of healthcare behind because it was awful for consumers. People who were disabled or otherwise had chronic conditions were, more or less, completely screwed. Not to mention these regulations are very much necessary. We want educated and highly certified doctors cutting you up.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#209

Post by consteval »

caskstrength wrote: post #152
ElFitz wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of them there is an initial probationary trial period during which you can easily fire someone without providing any justification, and with a minimal mandatory notice. It goes both ways: during that time, the employee too can quit with a reduced mandatory notice. That only covers the "if that person ends up sucking" part though. For the other "business falling apart", maybe they consider it’s part of the bus…

> For the other "business falling apart", maybe they consider it’s part of the business owner’s responsibility to make sound business decisions when involving someone else’s livelihood. Just like when leasing a shop or taking on a loan. What about running a tech startup with high chance of failure? Ever considered why they seem to be few and far between in EU?

Yes, naturally such a system is biased towards high accountability and high trust industries. Industries which thrive on minimal accountability and trust won't function very well. Personally, I think that's a good thing overall. The problem comes in when other countries don't operate this way, so those businesses can just go there (and take your talent with you, i.e. brain drain).

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#210

Post by KptMarchewa »

consteval wrote: post #207
KptMarchewa wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about changing the healthcare system entirely, but the tax deduction status.

Right, but we're currently at a point politically where we're heavily considering regressions in healthcare and insurance, not progressions. We're talking about bringing back denying coverage for existing conditions and allowing insurance to deny medication on grounds of religious reasons. Changing the tax deduction status would harm businesses, and therefore I can't see a conservative administration ever letting tha…

Which goes again to my original point.
Post reply on HN